METHODS: Forty-three participants (23 asymptomatic and 20 with CNP) underwent neck proprioception testing, returning to a NHP and THP in both sitting and standing positions (six trials for each test). A laser pointer was secured on the participant's forehead and inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors were placed beneath the laser pointer and at the level of the spinous process of the seventh cervical vertebra. Both the absolute and the constant JPE were assessed.
FINDINGS: For the asymptomatic participants, good reliability (ICC: 0.79) was found only for right rotation of the THP task in sitting. In standing, good reliability (ICC: 0.77) was only found in flexion for the THP task. In standing, good reliability (ICC: 0.77) was only found for right rotation of the THP for the absolute JPE and left rotation (ICC: 0.85) for the constant error of the NHP task. In those with CNP, when tested in sitting, good reliability was found for flexion (ICC: 0.8) for the absolute JPE and good reliability (ICC range: 0.8-0.84) was found for flexion, extension, and right rotation for the constant JPE. In standing, good reliability (ICC range: 0.81-0.88) was found for flexion, and rotation for the absolute JPE. The constant JPE showed good reliability (ICC: 0.85) for right rotation and excellent reliability (ICC: 0.93) for flexion. Validity was weak to strong (r range: 0.26-0.83) and moderate to very strong (r range: 0.47-0.93) for absolute and constant error respectively, when tested in sitting. In standing, the validity was weak to very strong (0.38-0.96) for the absolute JPE and moderate to very strong (r range: 0.54-0.92) for the constant JPE.
CONCLUSION: The reliability of the measure of JPE when tested in sitting and standing in both groups showed good reliability, but not for all movements. The results of the current study also showed that the laser pointer correlated well with the Noraxon IMUs, but not for all movements. The results of the current study support the use of the JPE using a laser pointer in clinical and research settings.
METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were explored to find related articles. Search terms were amputees, artificial limb, prosthetic suspension, prosthetic liner, vacuum, and prosthesis. The results were refined by vacuum socket or vacuum assisted suspension or sub-atmospheric suspension. Study design, research instrument, sample size, and outcome measures were reviewed. An online questionnaire was also designed and distributed worldwide among professionals and prosthetists (www.ispoint.org, OANDP-L, LinkedIn, personal email).
FINDINGS: 26 articles were published from 2001 to March 2016. The number of participants averaged 7 (SD=4) for transtibial and 6 (SD=6) for transfemoral amputees. Most studies evaluated the short-term effects of vacuum systems by measuring stump volume changes, gait parameters, pistoning, interface pressures, satisfaction, balance, and wound healing. 155 professionals replied to the questionnaire and supported results from the literature. Elevated vacuum systems may have some advantages over the other suspension systems, but may not be appropriate for all people with limb loss.
INTERPRETATION: Elevated vacuum suspension could improve comfort and quality of life for people with limb loss. However, future investigations with larger sample sizes are needed to provide strong statistical conclusions and to evaluate long-term effects of these systems.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether knee sleeves can significantly improve the biomechanical variables for knee problems.
METHOD: Systematic literature search was conducted on four online databases - PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Springer Link - to find peer-reviewed and relevant scientific papers on knee sleeves published from January 2005 to January 2015. Study quality was assessed using the Structured Effectiveness Quality Evaluation Scale (SEQES).
RESULTS: Twenty studies on knee sleeves usage identified from the search were included in the review because of their heterogeneous scope of coverage. Twelve studies found significant improvement in gait parameters (3) and functional parameters (9), while eight studies did not find any significant effects of knee sleeves usage.
CONCLUSION: Most improvements were observed in: proprioception for healthy knees, gait and balance for osteoarthritic knees, and functional improvement of injured knees. This review suggests that knee sleeves can effect functional improvements to knee problems. However, further work is needed to confirm this hypothesis, due to the lack of homogeneity and rigor of existing studies.